A commenter above pointed out GM's "super cruise" feature. A much safer choice of language for the same thing Tesla was initially offering
Tesla chose to go with "autopilot" because they sell people what they wanna hear. It's irresponsible and unsafe
> This is another version of the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument.
And no actually this is quite the opposite argument.
> The data shows that people are more irresponsible with the autopilot technology. Does this fault fall on the drivers or manufacturer.
Just like the fact that tools are specifically built in a way that makes them much more likely to be used to kill people, the fact that Tesla's are made and marketed the way they are makes them much more likely to be lead to people being irresponsible
I think you got the arguments backwards buddy. you're exactly the one who's making a version of the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument
I'm just saying it is the same argument, not that you are taking a given position on it.
The question of if Tesla sells a more dangerous product is different from the false advertising claim. Both could be true, false, or mixed.
I personally think FSD is false advertising but the name doesn't make the product anymore dangerous then if it would have been if called "super cruise", "driver assist", or whatever with identical features.
The features themselves may also be more dangerous, but the question of if that puts blood on their hands is the gun debate all over again.
Fast cars and cheap cars are also more dangerous, ect
Even without any driving assistance, people will go in their their phones and have lapses of attention.
The data shows that people are more irresponsible with the autopilot technology. Does this fault fall on the drivers or manufacturer.
reply